I think it has to be. There are ZERO new cute young girls in the business right now, hasn't been in awhile. Madison is the only one in the last couple months I can think of and she's from out of state.
Need new fresh young girls badly.
This has got to be related to the HIV outbreak and it's understandable.
girls who are staying in are getting lots of work, I talked to a girl one day and she said she could do anything for us until end of May, a day and a half later and it was the end of June, completely booked with jobs.
Okay. I'm on the outside looking in but I don't see this as a big problem. If you ask me there have been WAY too many new girls over the past year. So many of them just come and go. Why don't you just use more of the girls who are all ready working?
I understand that the business is freakishly dependent upon young, new girls nowadays, but, honestly, I would love if that trend would end.
However, I'm sure this HIV scare is probably the cause of the current predicament. It's been said before that Jenna Jameson set some kind of standard that so many of these young girls were trying to achieve. "I want to be the next Jenna." Maybe this has been a wake-up call of the grim reality of the business to girls.
Who knows. If I worked in the industry I would probably have a completely different, as well as more informed, view on the matter. I wouldn't worry too much about it though. Seriously. It's highly probably that girls will start flowing into the biz like they used to in a couple of months once they've forgotten about the HIV scare.
Kelly
PS...At JM Production's website, they have a section in their member's area that is essentially a "casting couch." In their latest update, they get a surprise visit from Gen Padova and mention that she was a welcome interview because the HIV scare had really scared off any whores as of late. So, I guess this is a widespread thing.
Edited by - tscfan317 on 5/22/2004 7:33:59 PM
[Link]
Pocketcomb_Pimp Deactivated User
1921 Posts 7/03
Posted - May 22 2004 : 2:49PM
I don't see it as a new girl drought as much as I see it as a porn drought. Things came to a hault, and if you expect it to be business as usual over night, your expectations are far too high. Unlike the last wave to hit the industry, this one had the potential to brind it to a permanet hault.
Lucky for all concerned parties that it only brought us to our knees. No disrespect intended for the medically affected parties, but I think this last month has brought caution back to the industry. When you cheat death on a daily basis, you start to forget that the odds are working against you.
There are far more women in porn today that when I started watching in my teens 10 years ago. I'm thankful that porn is a diverse place for all sexual beings to enjoy.
[Link]
*Mutt* Deactivated User
752 Posts 8/03
Posted - May 22 2004 : 3:10PM
HIV crisis didn't bring the industry to a halt tho, people were shooting through the duration. And if it had got worse with more cases of HIV production would have moved to other locales and moved more underground in L.A..
A big part of the business is dependent on new girls, but if there were no new girls I guess gonzo customers would adapt and get used to seeing the same faces on the box covers for years on end just like in feature movies. BUT with the gonzo girl attrition rate where girls leave the business due to getting 'wrecked', picking up nasty STD's, family and boyfriend issues - it wouldn't be very long before there weren't enough girls left to produce what the gonzo companies want to put out.
I don't think we even has seen the impact of the lastest HIV scare on the store shelves yet. It will be, maybe from a month from now till another 6 or 7 months that the draught will hit the consumers as companies are not producing as much as they normally do under the current circumstances. And fresh girls will be hard to find too, so we're stuck with the current girls for months to come. On the bright side, this will save me some bucks as there is less quality porn to spend money on.
[Link]
*Mutt* Deactivated User
752 Posts 8/03
Posted - May 22 2004 : 3:41PM
Current girls leave the biz - i am amazed when I look at a gonzo title from only a year ago and you look at the girls and 4 out of 5 are gone. So if there was a long term shortage of new blood it would definitely affect gonzo companies.
From where I can see, the outbreak has definitely slowed down the number of new girls, but it hasn't stopped. I have no doubt that for better or worse it will pick up again by, oh, next Fall at the very latest. People have really short memories these days, especially kids .,..
I agree with TSCfan317 (I find myself typing that phrase a lot, for some reason!) that there are WAY too many new girls coming in -- there's also WAY too many producers out there, churning out too much crap. That's why everybody's sales figures aren't what they were five years ago, and why the basic price structure for female performers hasn't seen a significant rise in quite some time, and is already (adjusted for inflation) way below what it was 10 or 15 years ago.
It's a boom time for guys, though -- in the last two years, the price a good, solid B to A level woodsman can command has gone up a hundred-percent. In the case of black performers, who only six or seven years ago were deemed "uncommercial" and underpaid, it's gone up at least 200 percent!
The reason for this is obvious -- any nitwit with a little cash (or not ...) can announce that he's a "producer" and start shooting, and to at least be in the game, all a girl has to do is open up and say "Ahh" ... the guys have to be able to really deliver the goods.
dac
p.s. On a related note of interest, I have had TWO of the girls that I regularly shoot this week tell me they've decided to go condom -- one,, according to her agent, is "trying to do only condom gigs," while the other is definitely condom or nothing. And they're both very popular actresses ....
davidaaronclark.com asianmouthclub.com
"The objectification and commodification of human sexuality beats flipping burgers or selling real estate any day. Even if it smells worse."
Ten plus years ago I was paying $500 for solo girl magazine layouts, and (thanks to the ghost of Ed Meese) we didn't even have digital penetration. Now I've got girls leaving messages on the phone telling me they'll do anal for $500. That's like saying you can get a two bedroom apt today for the same prices as a studio ten years ago. Something is definitely fucked up.
-T.C.
[Link]
*Mutt* Deactivated User
752 Posts 8/03
Posted - May 22 2004 : 6:36PM
great porn is more about the guys than the girls. in gonzo - features not as much. for me it helps if the guy is also good looking and young but that's because I'm selling mostly 'teen' content. but for any gonzo it's the guy who makes the scene go - it's like the pitcher and catcher in baseball - most people think the catcher is just some stocky guy who catches the ball from the pitcher, the catcher is much more than that and a great catcher can make a pitcher alot more successful.
BUT it's not as simple as the guy being a great fucker and having screen presence/charisma, some like Rocco and Nacho are that damn good that they can take over the scene almost completely, they are superstuds - other studs should realize that it's not all about them, know when to let the girl shine and get out of the way a little.
[Link]
*Mutt* Deactivated User
752 Posts 8/03
Posted - May 22 2004 : 6:45PM
and from what i have heard about Europe, it's always been that the male talent makes as much or more than the girls.
but that's probably more about Eastern Europe culture than anything to do with creating porn. Women there aren't very liberated yet.
Poor Turkey running for her life with Christmas Hat 3713 Posts 9/01
Posted - May 22 2004 : 7:04PM
While I am not aware of the going rates in porn, the prices of many things has gone down. You can get brand new electronics for less in today's dollars than they used to cost in old dollars. A new porn video in 1985 costs $70.00, and a new DVD today costs under $20.00. The wages for most jobs have not risen with inflation, but instead have fallen. The wage trend in porn is following the wage trend of the US in general. People make less for doing more work. This holds for both Walmart employees and porn talents. Also, some girls might look at porn as better than flipping burgers and the stigma of doing porn is not as much as it used to be. In some circles, it might even be trendy. Hence there is a greater supply of talent and lower wages.
The wage reduction for porn talents in the US is the sad result of the global economy and people who are not competitive in the global economy will face even more wage compression. Sad but true.
Ron
[Link]
*Mutt* Deactivated User
752 Posts 8/03
Posted - May 22 2004 : 7:11PM
how much should a porn girl make per scene? $800 is the going rate, some girls demand and get $1000 for straight b/g.
should the talent make more than the director/photographer?
if you're using a company like VIVID the girls are woefully underpaid when compared to what the company will make from their work. Sorta like the way it was in baseball before free agency when the owners made big money and the players all more or less made the same - an average working man's wage.
But for most small companies the girls are paid fairly. wage.
There's no reason to pay $5 for something when you can get the same/equivelent across the street for $4. That said, when the economics of something defy logic, that's often a sign that there's change on the horizon.
All evidence points to more and more people making less and less in the porn business. Maybe it's still better than flipping burgers, but if the trend continues at some point people will start to say "Fuck this, I'd rather be flipping burgers." At least when you're flipping burgers you don't have to worry about people not letting their kids play with your kids.
When the "moratorium" was announced, our inquiries picked up a lot: triple at least. I had thought this was a result of the Chatsworth shut down, and sex workers were casting a wider net in search of paying gigs. It seems now that our pick up was merely a coincedence. Things are "back to normal" in porn valley, but of volume of calls/e-mails hasn't slackened.
That's a good point to mull over, Mutt ... We both know that as a matter of fact, in most cases the talent is being paid MUCH more than the director/photographer, unless the director happens to either outright own his own product, or has a significant royalty deal with the production company he's working for (still pretty rare).
Which is doubtless a huge factor in the answer to the question posed so often elsewhere in so many different ways on this board by various fans: "Why does most porn suck? Why don't these guys behind the camera know what they're doing?"
I'm not quite sure what the average freelance director's fee is at the moment -- I know it's dropped as well in the last ten years, for sure -- but I'm going to guess it's between $1200-$2500 for a gonzo. Think about that, fans ... your average mid-level gonzo director who's churning out two movies a month is grossing between $14,500 and. $55K for all the shit he does ... and in addition, unless he's got a contract going, he's working show to show, never knowing when he might be out of work due to the company finding somebody who'll do it cheaper, has a better rap when they show up in the office (its not an urban legend: most company owners really don't actually watch their own product) or hey, maybe the owner decides that his nephew or girlfriend can do a better job ...
Now does it begin to make sense why "the best and brightest" aren't attracted to porn? At this point, it's NOT the social stigma ....
Also: The flood of performer/directors is hardly because company owners looked at Evil Angel and saw that it made creative sense for a performer to start directing ... it's because they can pay them just a little more (maybe!) to perform in their own shows, and therefore drive the budget even farther down ...
Though there are a few brilliant new performer directors such as Brandon Irons out there, and some that at least hit the mark, most of them just aren't very good. The ones who make the jump because they have some creative talent and better ideas than the people they get hired by are far outnumbered by the ones who think it will eventually somehow lead to a more lucrative income.
And then of course there's the big name ones -- most of whom seem to hang out long enough to be in the behind the scenes footage, and then leave the set, trusting that the mediocre but efficient journeyman camera guy they've hired will get the -- let's take a deep breath and recite it together: "Short tease, bj, three positions vag, three positions anal and a pop."
[Link]
kerrville Deactivated User
kerrville, texas 39 Posts 5/04
Posted - May 23 2004 : 3:41AM
DAC, I agree with you wholeheartedly, What pisses me off most is wannabees on the internet who shoot POV or cover their face. I guess they figured it is cheaper to shoot a porn girl and recoup their money back on the internet than pay an escort for a PRIVATE. These losers are just flooding the internet with bull.
New talent seem to come in spurts. I think that the massive coverage has scared alot of girls off but considering that some companies might give a girl a pass with condoms we might see new talent coming through the door.
I still believe in God, but God no longer believes in me.
I would modify this and say "At this point, it's not JUST the social stigma..."
Even paying the New York City going rates, I have trouble finding make-up artist, grips, etc; my DP won't even work on my smut uncredited. Sure, there's an endless line of people (male and female) who would be happy to work for free just to be on a film set, or on a porn shoot, or both. But people with professional level skills and experience just aren't interest.
I don't think it used to be this way. Legend is that back in the "Golden Age" it was very hip for mainstream Hollywood crews to moonlight on porn films. It was new and glamourous and exciting. Now most people who know the business are about interested in working on a porn set as they would be in working in a rendering plant.
Maybe it's just a simple numbers situation. I THOUGHT (I could be completely wrong) that one of the new requirements was that any new talent had to have 60 days of clean tests. If that is true then wouldn't it be no new girls even get shot until 60 days after the moritorium ends(ed) and then the usual 30 to 90 days before release date of the shoot? So that's like 3 to 5 months before new girls hit the shelves, no? Maybe there is no lack of new girls, just the numbers are against you seeing them for a little while.
Funny if male and female talent get paid so much and do not need any experience or training to do a scene. But directors and photographers are getting paid less for years of experience and school training, not to mention all the expense in equipment! No wonder all these movies are mostly rock bottom stuff, all the skilled guys are finding work elsewhere. I don't blame them.
Hey kimi -- no, the 60-day "cooling off" and testing-twice proposition is part of the California assembly bill toset some workplace standards for porn, which all the companies are violently opposed to .. So far the only concrete move has been when RLD/PlatX announced last Friday theyre now going to require the talent they book to have a test no more than two weeks old, and not shoot performers returning from abroad until they've been back for two weeks ... this is pretty much window dressing, and notice that it doesn't require the company to actually spend any money to protect the performers ... they get to pay twice a month instead of once ...
There's a public hearing on June 3 at the Van Nuys municipal building on if and/or how the industry needs some oversight on workplace conditions ....
I have to stand corrected on one point -- saw the actual full press release sent out by RLD/Plat today, and they claim in it they will pay for more recent test for talent they book. That IS something .. but since we all know by now that tests have no prophylactic value, better answers are still required ...
Mienhagen aka Shameless deactivated again
Europe 696 Posts 6/04
Posted - Jun 4 2004 : 10:45AM
I would expect European girls to take over even more after that HIV-outbreak in California. It will probabely shy a lot of US-colledge girls off who else would have gone earning a few bucks doing some porn during their summer holidays. But, as already mentioned by others, the results we can see only in 4-6 months time, when what was shot after the outbreak is canned and ready to be sold as dvd.
As for porn wages, I would think European competition has some impact, too. Globalisation doesnt stop in front of porn sets.
Im in Australia and we pay through the ass for porn here... a new DVD costs AU$65 (US$55) here... yet we still pay. I need to find a good US website that posts internationally.
[Link]
Mienhagen aka Shameless deactivated again
Europe 696 Posts 6/04
Posted - Jun 5 2004 : 4:04AM
TylerDZ, check the International Shoping section in this forum. There you get a lot of info on cheap distributors shipping outside the US and international customers issues.
I think porn is a commodity entertainment good and it should not cost more than 20-30$ on dvd. The price should be such that any average earning person can easily buy a few dvds per month to get their dose of canned sex. Luckily globalisation, electronic revoltion and new upspringing porn producers keep a lot of pressure on prices recently. If Ashcroft should run crazy porn will just get produced in Europe by US-directors I guess. Noone can probabely charge 75$ per porn tape again - except for really specialized fetish scenes.
I talked to a good friend of mine who owns a major production company. He was asking about qualified directors to shoot camera for him. A rather lucrative deal when you consider that they shoot only 2 days a week. The quote is permanently imbedded in my head.
"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king"
The reason he said this is that in this current field of porno, there are few competent people behind the camera or who can maintain a schedule or who can meet deadlines or who won't run off with a budget to pay off hookers or buy a car, etc.
Porno is still an underground arena. It will always stay in the gutter. And it'll attract, by and large, gutter dwellers. I'm no exception. I'm attracted by this gutter industry.
The best directors are, by and large, have their own deals and make significant amounts of cash because they know their craft, they know their market, and they know how to make good product.
The industry also have people who have worked inside for, let's say, a decade or more, with nothing to show for it except incessant whining about how they're not appreciated for their work, they're undervalued, etc etc, meanwhile they'll annoy their workplace by stealing office supplies and avoid paying checks to talent, etc.
There is a ton of money in this industry if you know how to play your cards right according to talent. Because this industry is so small and incestous, everybody knows everything about everyone, right or wrong.
Let the marketplace decide. Supply and demand economics can be a good force in determining the worth of performers, directors, producers, etc. And with each passing year, new talented people come in to rattle the 'established' players who seemingly are mired in poverty (not only in monetary terms but in ideas and talent).
Chico
[Link]
Mienhagen aka Shameless deactivated again
Europe 696 Posts 6/04
Posted - Jun 7 2004 : 10:04AM
Let the market decide - You say it, Chico! It seems the US marketplace got a shattering blast, but there are not many directors and producers capable of shelling out what the market demands. Old names are still big, mainly. New hopes, like you, are scarce. Another thing is with performers: A bunch of beautiful 18 y.o. Euro girls ready to do it all are probabely more worth than a few scared to condom-only LA pros, especially since the market demands new faces with increasing spead.
I'm not so sure that the market demands new faces so much as the use of new faces reflects most directors' inability to differentiate their product. If you're doing the same schtick as everybody else and too fill-in-the-blank to change, then using new performers may be the only way to keep your movies noticed.
I, for one, am just as happy seeing quality performers over and over again. I think it is stupid not to use performers like Tiffany Mynx and India just because they've done a scene for you already.
[Link]
Mienhagen aka Shameless deactivated again
Europe 696 Posts 6/04
Posted - Jun 7 2004 : 10:45AM
I was talking about newly converted condom-only pros, Hardware.
Me, too, I like my bareback veterans, but most films have a certain ratio of old and new faces. This is simply a marketplace demand.
I keep hearing this, but I'm growing more and more dubious. Why?
• I hear about what a financial hardship testing is on performers. Even at once a week, that's only about $5500/year. I'm the last person to snear at $5.5K, but come on. This is a business, right? If folks are making bank, $5,5K just ain't that much.
• I mention potential benefits of a low end ENG camera and industry folks do spit-takes. From their reaction, you'd think I was recommending renting a Panavision Gold package!
• In the same thread I see the purchase of three "prosumer" cameras (total purchase price ~$10K) refered to as a "significant investment in the quality of our product"
There've been a dozen other things I'm sure, but I've had a couple of beers and can't seem to recall. At any rate, more and more I get the feeling that while there might be a few people who are making money, most people in the jizz bizz are just scraping by. How many full time porn workers (in front of or behind the camera) have health insurance? How many are maxing their SEP/KEOGH/401K each year? How many are building equity each month paying down a mortgage instead of paying someone else's with their rent payments? I know a few people are doing well, but how about the average person? Is there enough money in the jizz bizz that the average cat makes a good living?
Actually Tony, I have health insurance and I own a home but I'm also not a clueless 20 year old girl with a talented colon and a depedence on ecstasy and abusive boyfriends :)
If you make 15k a month, no matter what line of work you're in, I'd say that you're doing pretty well. However if you make 15k a month and spend 16k, you're a typical girl in the porn biz.
You've also shown that, regardless of what your take might be, you're not the "average cat"
Granted, porn attracts more than it's share of financially irresponsible people. But even if you're a nose to the grindstone 20something with a talented colon, at $15K/month you're not going to be able to save that much money over the span of your six month "porn career". A down payment for a house? In today's market $30K isn't even 10% in a lot of places. But even if you scratch together the down, you've still got 30 years of monthly payments ahead of you.
I suppose behind the camera people have longer careers, but from what I understand, they don't make $1K/day either.
First off, if you're an "independent contractor" $15K/month ain't nearly $15K in your pocket, not nearly.
I'd bet a porn performer would have $2K-$3K/month in business expenses easy. Then take 15% of the remainder ($1.8K) as self-employment tax (what employed people call FICA.) Then at 1/2 of that back in and figure about 30% ($3,750) in fed and state income tax. Now deduct the things that most people get paid for by their employers, most especially health insurance (min. $350/month.) We started with $15K, now were down to $6,1K.
That's still a nice chuck of money, but it's got to cover rent in LA, a car to get around, food, and whatever enjoyment you want from life. Even if a gal lives like a monk, I bet she'd be hard pressed to save $3,000/month. After her six month run in the jizz bizz is up, she's got $18K. The median house price in SoCal is $371K. But don't despair, with $18K she's got just enough for a down payment at the national media ($171K), but she's still going to need daddy to lend her the money for closing costs.
No idea how it pencils for people behind the camera.
Why do you always write about independent contractors AND self-employment tax?
Anyone making any decent amount of money in their own business and who is educated about keeping it is probably incorporated.
One has an entirely different financial picture from what you are describing if one is running a well planned corporation.
And, how is porn any different from any other industry?
You have people who struggle to earn enough, people who earn plenty and still struggle, and people who earn plenty and do something with it. That is life, right? Not just the porn biz?
I personally know a U.S. professional athlete whose contract is for $8 million a year and I have more money in the bank than he does. (Not trying to say I have millions - lol trying to say that he spends more than he makes.)
Our biz has a problem of a lot of young girls making the most money (for the talent) and a lack of financial sophistication that can be a killer for them. The lifestyle of a LA porn star can be intoxicating... and it costs money.
Have you ever watched a 18 year old spend money? Now watch one who is living on their own... in LA.. in a whirl-wind party lifestyle.... Now watch one that you hand $1000's of dollars to at a time who believes that money is growing on trees...
Need to plan or save? Why? I can just go do more shoots?
The biggest problem is that their money comes in spurts. They may have week where they earn over $10k - just for the week. That is actually pretty easy. Then they might take 3 weeks off and party or vacation.
Or they might work all month and make $20 or $25k and then not work for a while.
But, the money was spent the first day because it is SO easy to make and it seems so endless. They get caught up in that cycle. And, then one day... the shoots start to dry up. And, they never leave with that golden pot they thought they would of.
I know directors in the business struggling to get by and I know directors who have made serious, serious money.
Studio owners.... the amount of money it takes to start up and finance a top porn studio through the first year is much more than you think. You spend the first year getting to your profit point and the second year earning your first money back. You literally have millions of dollars coming in and you are plowing it right back in. By year 3, you start to live pretty well. Make it 10 years like John S. and.... lets just say that life is good.
How is any of this different from most small business stories? Some strike out, some strike it big, and the rest play in the middle for their entire life. Most small business owners don't really own a business - they own a job.
Here is the one thing that people keep missing when they talk about the porn biz being a HUGE MONEY biz on one hand and at the same time how little one will spend on a movie on the other....
The porn biz is a low margin biz. Period. You make your money through volume.
Yes, all the money for all the movies sold adds up to a HUGE industry. But, that doesn't mean that everyone in the biz has a large piece of that pie. The pie goes to the people making the most of the volume.
Why won't these directors go out and buy a bunch of $16k cameras? Well... Probably because a simple profit loss analysis will tell you - that a) you don't need it and b) you won't make more with it - you will make less.
Low margins. High volume.
Why doesn't Wal-Mart (one of the biggest and most profitable businesses of all time!!!) pay their employees more?
If they start to do that - their razor thin margins disappear. They make their money through volume.
That is why the artists in this business suffer... Their art demands the very tradecraft that you crave, TC. But, the financial reality of this business will crush the artist almost every time.
You can't put out the perfect porn movie two times a year in this business and still put food on your table as a director. Put out 1 a month and you are middle-America. Put out 1 a week and you will get rich.
The answer, my artist friend? If you are going to be proud of what you produce as "art" AND make money in porn.... you have to walk a very thin line.
One false step either way and that goal will elude you in this LA porn world.
The real secret? I think it is just shooting what really turns you on and what you really want to see and worrying about the money later (after you have checked with the Head of Sales to verify that your market will be big enough to ensure you will make money, of course). ;)
Why? Becauce whether you're incorporated or a sole proprietorship, the feds want their 15.5%
If you're a sole proprietorship that 15.5% is taken on the schedule SE, the first schedule after the P&L (aka schedule C)
If you're an employee of your own corporatation, that 15.5% comes half from withholdings the employee's pay check and half from the employer's contribution. When you're an employee of you own corporation, guess who pays the employer contribution? It doesn't take an accountant to figure that out.
Aside from the (rather week) corporate vail, the primary advantage of incorporation over sole propietorship is that it allows retirement and health insurance to be paid for by the corporation and deducted from the corporation's P&L. That means this costs are being paid with pre-SS tax (aka self employment or FICA) money. This is a considerable savings, especially if you health insurance costs are high, or you are in the habit of putting a lot of money away for retirement.
So let's say our nose to the grind stone girl knows what she's doing, has hit the ground running, and is incorporated before her first shoot. The money she's putting away for retirement might reduce her tax bill, but it doesn't put anymore cash in her hand. She'll see another $157.50 extra in pocket each month by being able to move her health insurance from her personal ledger to the corporate ledger.
-T.C.
edited to add:
Some of the more affluent member of our community are probably already thinking "Poor schmucks. Don't they know that SS goes away once you get above a certain level of income?" I can't remember the number, but by the time you get their, you tax bracket is higher; it's about a wash.
Financial commentary aside, I don't believe that I have ever read a more lucid, articulate and most importantly ACCURATE description of the econimic reality of the porn biz than what Selena described. Jeezuz!! You just nailed it!! Even though I'm as jaded and pessimistic as they come, every once in a great while someone with a head on their shoulders reminds me that not everyone in porn is oblivious to the real world.
Let's say I'm one of these young go-getter turning about videos at the blistering pace of 1/week. But let's also say that I like to enjoy all that money I'm making so I only make 40 videos a year. Over the three year life of the camera (conservative) that's 120 titles. Amortized over 120 titles that's an extra $133.33 per title.
If my sale are uneffected by using the more expensive camera, then I've lost a little over $5K/year for three years. If as a result of my higher image quality I sell on average an extra 15 copies (at $10/copy) per title, I'm even. If it turns out the market is mad for sharply focused, more richly colored, deeply textured porn and I selll an extra 30 copies per title, I'm up about $15K.
To me this seems like a no brainer. The downside is limited to $15K over three years (not a lot if you're really making bank,) and just imagine what the upside is if I only sell an additional 100 (if my average is 3000, that's only a 3.3% increase) copies per title. (Well actually, we don't have to imagine, it's easy arithmetic.) Moreover, if it doesn't go well, I can cut my losses by selling the camera and going back to what I was doiing before.
Now maybe you're right. You're inside and I'm outside; that makes you privy to figures I don't have and realities I may not understand. Maybe these fellow possess unparralleled business acumen, and have figured out what the market will bear to within a dime. I'm merely suggesting that there may be other explanations.
-T.C.
Edited by - TonyC on 6/8/2004 9:43:22 AM
[Link]
*Mutt* Deactivated User
752 Posts 8/03
Posted - Jun 8 2004 : 3:06AM
Selina is very smart, one day she'll probably own a studio.
Poor Turkey running for her life with Christmas Hat 3713 Posts 9/01
Posted - Jun 8 2004 : 4:03AM
It does make a difference to the buyers. I was watching a title (which shall remain nameless), and I got the feeling that the camera is a bit better than my JVC (but not that much better). The color was off and the camera was not all that sharp. Also, the lighting was bad. A good camera cannot compensate for bad lighting or bad setting, but the end result of a good camera in the hands of a competent cameraperson is clearly noticeable. Anyway the state of digital technology has improved, but the optics of the cheapies are very mediocre at best.
I kept wondering what G*^d*&^ cheap camera the cameraperson was using and was not too happy with the DVD.
Ron
[Link]
Mienhagen aka Shameless deactivated again
Europe 696 Posts 6/04
Posted - Jun 8 2004 : 4:05AM
I fully agree, too. Page 3 of this tread is one of the most intersting things I have read on porn production aspects recently and Selena Silver is just top (mind, looks & performance). But all this does not solve the problem we face: A serious New Girl Grought.
Mutt started this tread and he just says it again: Please let us think about how and where from we can get new girls into porn soon .
I guess Europe is one solution, but I might be wrong.
People seem to want three things from their vocations: remuneration, job satisfaction, societal approbation. Between the three, I'd guess the best way to quickly attract new talent to the business would be to offer to pay them more.
-T.C.
[Link]
*Mutt* Deactivated User
752 Posts 8/03
Posted - Jun 8 2004 : 11:44AM
the people i talk to say that there are always slumps when it comes to newcomers but I think it's too much of a coincidence that this one coincides with the HIV outbreak and press coverage thereof. The money doesn't have much to do with it - girls are already being promised they can make 25 grand a month by the guys who do the scouting/pimping.
It is always tempting to assume that is what is true for oneself is true for everyone else. It is also human nature to assign causality to conincedental events. Sometimes this leads to insight, but at least as often it leads to false conclusions. (Post hoc, ergo prompter hoc, etc.)
For the time being, let's assume that there is in fact a slow down of new talent entering the mainstream porn bizz. (I'm getting more inquieries than ever.) Let's also assume that this is because the coverage of the recent HIV outbreak has made prospective performers more aware of the potential risk associated with the business, and the unavoilable shortcomings of the system used to detect HIV once it has entered the pool of performers; and that this increased awareness has made potential new-comers more reluctant to enter the business. To paraphrase Selena: they've done an instinctive profit and loss analysis and decided it's not worth it.
If this is indeed the case, then it seems there are only two possible ways to entice people to enter the business: 1) Lower the risk, 2) Increase the reward.
Lowering the risk has been driven into ground on other threads, so let's not rehash it here. Seymore Butts aside, there's little evidence of the risk side of the equation changing. That leave reward; which comes in both tangible and intangible forms. Artist (and other varieties of fools) are notorious for overvaluing intangible rewards. Porn, and the people who work in porn seem primarily concerened with tangible rewards.
That being case, I'd say that if offering $25K/month won't do it, try $30K, and if that won't do it, try $35K. The only other options would seem to be 1) wait it out and hope that, as Mr. Clark posits, memories are short and in a few months there will be a whole new "crop" of young hotties ready and eager to work at current rates. 2) Find way of doing business that is not dependent on a steady stream of youngsters ready and eager to work at the price currently being offered.
In short, it is beyond anyone's power to "let the market decide." The market will decide, the market is deciding, the only question is how will you respond.
-T.C.
Edited by - TonyC on 6/8/2004 1:11:00 PM
[Link]
*Mutt* Deactivated User
752 Posts 8/03
Posted - Jun 8 2004 : 3:09PM
if my hypothesis is right or partly right, time will heal the problem, people have short memories, the specter of the HIV outbreak will fade. When girls read those ads in the LA Weekly and other papers, or some agent recruits them in a strip club - i don't think telling a girl that she can make 35 thousand a month versus telling her she can make 25 thousand a month makes any difference. It's a lot of money to an 18 year old girl, it's alot of money to me, if she's broke enough, greedy enough, adventurous enough or some mixture of all of those she will give porn a shot.
There are alot of mysoginists in porn, i hear the refrain 'if u throw enough money at these girls they'll do anything they're whores' - that's not true, there are plenty of girls who could be making big money but stick to their guns and never do more than solo or g/g. I know one solo girl who was offered 75 grand on a contract for a handful of movies, she passed.
We're going to deal with the problem by recruiting on our own so we're not as reliant on others for girls.
Poor Turkey running for her life with Christmas Hat 3713 Posts 9/01
Posted - Jun 8 2004 : 3:45PM
I am sure that Mutt is right. In time, the average Jane will have forgotten about the HIV+ breakout or will think that it will not affect them. In the big perspective, being in the adult industry is probably not more dangerous than having unprotected sex with strangers one meets in bars and clubs.
Well that certainly is a novel assertion. I suppose if all you're doing is telling them, it might be true. I suspect that i a studio or director makes it known that they're paying $3,500/scene, they'll have a wider array of talent choices than if they pay $800/scene.I certainly hope I did not (and do not) sound like one these most unpleasant people who feel the need to denegrate others based on the fact that they have an appreciation of their own financial worth (in whatever vocation they choose.)
Each one of us makes a choice each day about what we will or won't do for money. Time and time again, where any of us draws that line proved changible depending on our fortunes, both good and bad. Remuneration is but one factor, and not always the most important one.
Demanding to be paid what you're worth does not make one either greedy, or a whore; and the only sure way to find out what you're worth is to ask for more than you're worth . The only way to get what you're worth is to never take one penny less.
